Ironstone Condos | HT ?? | 16 FLRS | U/C

[thistleclub]

Getting back to Ironstone Condos | HT ?? | 16 FLRS | U/C, I wonder what the board's reaction would have been had the same building been developed on the same site (or, alternately, near the Meadowlands or Summit Park) without the "green" marketing tilt or the ad presence on Skyscraperpage. Which do people find more objectionable: the marketing or the map position?

[raisethehammer]

the marketing.

I'd like to see more stuff like this built in the suburbs. But don't insult our intelligence with stuff about 'sustainability' and 'footprint' of the residents.
It's more sustainable than sprawled out homes and that's good enough for me.
I'd fall over in shock if something like this was ever built in the meadowlands.

[adam]

I can't help but think the name Meadowlands was meant to be toungue in cheek. Its like a slap in the face to the natural area that was absolutely destroyed when it was built. Meanwhile there are empty buildings downtown.. oh sorry i forgot, the downtown is reserved for synchronized stoplights and 2 1-way highways.

[raisethehammer]

don't you know, they always name these places after whatever they destroy.
Eagles Nest Drive.... Blue Jay Lane....Orchard Park....
now, its the medowless-lands.

[fastcarsfreedom]

It's all about the map position thistleclub--make no mistake. Fault would be found--there would be some negative tilt--it's how things work here. You certainly don't see this Forum swimming with praise for Dundas--which is seeing it's downtown surrounded by higher density developments--best case scenario these things are ignored--or the presence of parking, objectionable building materials or something else would be found to be at fault.

There was no intent on anyone's part to 'hijack' this thread--the topic carried the conversation in a certain direction--and that's that. Fair to see this condo development was the start-off point for the discussion, and it has continuted to be the underlying theme.

As for HTA enforcement of bicycles--all I suggested was the SAME level of enforcement--not more--as motor vehicles.

I also just forked out $ for my val tag--actually seems to me to be a relatively reasonable price to pay to keep my plates valid. I actually assume the "robbed" statement was meant to be sarcastic. If it wasn't, freedom is easily exercised, by simply giving up the vehicle.

As for joepickuptruck (perhaps a new screen name for me?)--his concern's over gas prices are easily dismissed by you because he lives such an objectionable life. Of course, you have no more actual insight into his life, than he has into yours. Again, those cheering for a further $1/liter increase in gasoline prices have chosen to complete divorce themselves from reality.

[adam]

If my bike is being treated the same as my car and faced with the same licensing regulations and payments, I should be able to take up a lane on the 403, or anywhere I please. If that's not acceptable, then I should expect bike lanes on EVERY SINGLE ROAD. I should be able to bike all along the 401 from here to Windsor.

Apples and oranges aren't the same are they?

[fastcarsfreedom]

All I said was that the HTA should be enforced equally. Sadly, for every respobsible cyclist on the road, there is another who feels it's acceptable to ignore the law and use their "right" to use the road as a cloak. I never advocated licensing or fees for bikes--not sure where that's coming from.

Suggesting the use of bicycles on a 400-series highway is taking your argument to the extreme. The same logic would suggest cars be allowed to use bicycle paths.

[raisethehammer]

nothing far fetched about that. I routinely come across cars parked in bike lanes all the time. Still haven't seen a bike on the 403.
Fact is, cars break the law FAR more than any other mode of transport. It's not even close.

[adam]

Anyone want to start a bash cyclists thread?

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

It's all about the map position thistleclub--make no mistake. Fault would be found--there would be some negative tilt--it's how things work here. You certainly don't see this Forum swimming with praise for Dundas--which is seeing it's downtown surrounded by higher density developments--best case scenario these things are ignored--or the presence of parking, objectionable building materials or something else would be found to be at fault.

There was no intent on anyone's part to 'hijack' this thread--the topic carried the conversation in a certain direction--and that's that. Fair to see this condo development was the start-off point for the discussion, and it has continuted to be the underlying theme.

As for HTA enforcement of bicycles--all I suggested was the SAME level of enforcement--not more--as motor vehicles.

I also just forked out $ for my val tag--actually seems to me to be a relatively reasonable price to pay to keep my plates valid. I actually assume the "robbed" statement was meant to be sarcastic. If it wasn't, freedom is easily exercised, by simply giving up the vehicle.

As for joepickuptruck (perhaps a new screen name for me?)--his concern's over gas prices are easily dismissed by you because he lives such an objectionable life. Of course, you have no more actual insight into his life, than he has into yours. Again, those cheering for a further $1/liter increase in gasoline prices have chosen to complete divorce themselves from reality.

well, I appreciate the fact that you now speak on behalf of the entire forum, but please consider the following:

- Dundas is routinely praised for it's density and downtown. When has anyone bashed Dundas or talked negatively about it? I can't think of once.
- The Madison is under construction on the Mountain. Most of the 'urbanists' on the forum have been the biggest supporters of this project and are hoping it sells out and leads to more similar construction projects.

[DC83]

100% the Marketting.

I have faith in Meadowlands (at least the main commercial aspect of it) and yes, I would be dumbfounded if something of this nature was built in Ancaster or Stoney Creek or Binbrook...

IF they used the same 'green' campaign to market themselves, HELL YA I'd be all up on them for being liars. But hey, they know how to market to stupid ppl... hence why none of us have even considered this condo bldg.

IF they built this at Forest & Catherine, however, then we'd all be very VERY happy

[Jon Dalton]

I'm indifferent to the project. It's good for the area, but it's just mind-boggling that anyone would want to live in a condo here. The attraction of outer suburbs is lots of open space and a big house with a yard, is it not? Just seems like the worst of both worlds.

Regarding bicycles and the law: Different types of vehicles are subject to different rules. Transport trucks obviously have much tighter restrictions than mopeds and scooters. Bicycles are the least dangerous of all vehicles. The cyclist should be allowed more leeway because he/she has 100% visibility and the ability to stop or turn on a dime. Some jurisdictions already allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. This is something every cyclist already does and it will not change any more than rolling stops or going 10km/h over the speed limit will change. You won't see bike couriers who get paid by the delivery waiting for a light to change when there are no cars in the way. It's just how we roll in the city. This is coming from someone who bikes, walks AND drives.

[adam]

Agreed. I walk bike and drive as well. I avoid driving when i can, and in turn get some exercise, save money on gas (by not using any at all!)
... its amazing how different the city looks when you aren't trapped in a car in traffic.

[raisethehammer]

Hamilton looks it's absolute worst from a car IMO.
It looks great from the window of a bus and looks and FEELS amazing (maybe that's the key - the FEEL of the city) while walking or cycling.

[fastcarsfreedom]

It's amazing to me how quickly everyone goes on the defensive. If I am to believe the prevailing theory here, bicycles are increasing in number and will continue to increase in numbers/usage. Therefore, with that in mind, the only way to reduce the frequency of accidents is to tighten enforcement. The same goes for all kinds of vehicles. What amazes me is the inability of some people to have a conversation about bicycles and traffic laws without setting off a tirade about motor vehicles.

All cities look better on foot - I've yet to a see a city look any different from a bus than it does from a car - I'll take your word on that one.

As for Dundas--rest assured that my tongue was partly in my cheek for that post. I would actually be okay with someone saying they have a bias against anything built outside of the urban core -- it's a genuine statement. If Ironstone was built downtown everyone's tongues would be on the sidewalk and no one would give a rat's ass if they said it was a 'green' building or not. Dundas does have density in it's core (as do Burlington, Stoney Creek, even Waterdown) but any praise is limited. The real humor in all this is the suggestion that I was using the royal 'we'...that's a good one...

[raisethehammer]

Lol....good post.
Yea, call me crazy but I find when I'm on the bus I can just look around and see whats happening, people interacting etc...
In a car, you're just focused on the road (or the cell phone, hairbrush and ipod) and never get to see what's around you.
Check it out next time you're on the bus.

As for other cities, I guess Mississuaga looks better from a car than anywhere else?? It's pretty bad regardless, but driving in on the highway you actually have some hope for a decent CBD only to find out that it's a big shopping mall.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

It's amazing to me how quickly everyone goes on the defensive. If I am to believe the prevailing theory here, bicycles are increasing in number and will continue to increase in numbers/usage. Therefore, with that in mind, the only way to reduce the frequency of accidents is to tighten enforcement. The same goes for all kinds of vehicles. What amazes me is the inability of some people to have a conversation about bicycles and traffic laws without setting off a tirade about motor vehicles.

Well I enjoy bombing around on a bike faster than cars in the city, and am somewhat concerned about the recent discussion about bike licensing and such. Why should I not be defensive if I believe there is a valid defense? Sure I'm admitting I break the law, just like every one of has at some point today. My point is that laws should be enforced according to the risk posed by the offender.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I suppose perhaps I was thinking back to being a passenger in a car - I always remember looking at King Street as we'd drive by - tshirt stores and stereo shops back then. Unfortunately, the bus lost it's appeal for me around the same time -- I haven't been on one in several years -- and unfortunately never enjoyed using public transit down here--the HSR is on par with the TTC when compared to our system down here--all of the buses down here turn around at the city limits - so we don't have service out here. The one exception is the bus which travels through the Tunnel and does a loop of Downtown Detroit -- it's the one innovative and successful service they operate -- and it runs on a generous frequency.

I have no love for Mississauga. Nonetheless, they have TRIED to develop density in their "downtown"--remember, when Square One was built - it was very typical sprawl in the midst of a field - and they've added some genuinely fine public buildings like their Civic Centre and Living Arts Centre...they have tried. Very high quality public transit of course makes a difference - such that the similarly "invented" downtowns in North York and Scarborough have developed more density than Mississauga has -- and Scarborough's too was built around a mall - in that case STC.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

I'm all for diversity of transport modes. Perhaps, in the near future--the driver's of these other vehicles will be subject to the same level of enforcement of the highway traffic act as the driver's of motor vehicles. Compliance comes with enforcement, safety comes with compliance.

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

As for HTA enforcement of bicycles--all I suggested was the SAME level of enforcement--not more--as motor vehicles.

I hate to break it to you, but drivers of motor vehicles are subject only to selective enforcement. Police turn blind eyes to speeds as high as 20-30 over the limit on major roads/highways, and 10-20 over the limit on most other roads, including residential streets. Believe it or not, speeding is against the law. even if it's "only a little speeding".

Police turn blind eyes to rolling stops at stop signs, and even more dangerously, rolling stops on turns at red lights.

So as far as equal enforcement, I think that given the selective nature of automobile enforcement, the enforcement of cyclists should be equally selective. That means enforcing only the worst offences - riding amongst pedestrians, perhaps. Riding the wrong way down a one way street.

I'm all for equal enforcement as well. I have been arguing for it for years. But I also think that if the TRUE reasoning is safety, then tightening enforcement needs to begin with the most dangerous users, and as things come under control, you move down the line toward the least dangerous. As it stands, drivers injure and kill a hell of a lot of people each year, so perhaps we should start enforcing their rules first. Once that's under control, we can start focussing on scooter-ers, cyclists, and pedestrians -- who tend to injure or kill nobody but themselves (and even then, only occasionally).

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

It's amazing to me how quickly everyone goes on the defensive. If I am to believe the prevailing theory here, bicycles are increasing in number and will continue to increase in numbers/usage. Therefore, with that in mind, the only way to reduce the frequency of accidents is to tighten enforcement. The same goes for all kinds of vehicles. What amazes me is the inability of some people to have a conversation about bicycles and traffic laws without setting off a tirade about motor vehicles.

You put cyclists on the defensive by putting RTH's quote in bold face, and starting a discussion about enforcing cyclists and scooters, with an implication that motorists are law abiding victims of cyclists' outlaw actions. (Sorry if we misinterpreted this, but the fact that several of us saw it this way might show that the implication was pretty strong).

The motor vehicle "tirade" is completely valid because when enforcement of cyclists comes up, it inevitably leads to a discussion of "equal enforcement" and motorists break laws even more often than cyclists. So if the true discussion is about fairness and safety, then hell yes, we had better talk about cars.

Anyone who argues that cyclist enforcement is lacking, but motorist enforcement is just fine, is clearly arguing based on a different set of principles other than safety. This is simple math. Law breaking motorists cause most of the injuries and fatalities on the road. Law breaking cyclists and pedestrians cause very very few. My guess is that the underlying issue is usually motorists' convenience, but of course that's just speculation. Whatever the true motivation, safety it ain't.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I am keenly aware of selective enforcement--perhaps more intimately than your realize. I can assure you that basic principles as far as enforcement of bicycles go is 100% discretion -- as in, enforcement is next to nil. In reality the resources don't exist at the police level, or within the provincial offences system, to handle more enforcement than is currently ongoing.

For certain there are terrible motor vehicle operators on the road -- and just as they give all driver's a bad name there is an equal percentage of cyclists who ride as they please and inevitably hide behind their "right" to do so. Basic compliance is fairly high among all drivers, however I made no implication that all driver's are law-abiding saints. If several of you drew the same conclusions about my statement it might well be attributed to group-think, or a tendancy to categorize my posts as combative--I have no idea--in fact, your misinterpretation of my statements is your concern. The boldface quote was in fact a keying error - I had intended to italicize it, and selected the wrong icon.

I find your accusations that my concerns are not safety-related to be belittling--I don't believe I ever stated that cyclists or pedestrians cause accidents--but I have experience seeing the result of these accidents--and they are rarely positive for the cyclist...regardless of who's ultimately at fault.